SUBSCRIBE:

Why is martial law imposed mainly on the media in Thailand?

The shutdown of media channels . . . has targeted the relatively newer channels of information that has represented the recent expansion of media freedoms in Thailand, away from the docile mainstream print media and the state or army controlled broadcast media.

Share

The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) expresses gravest concern over the Royal Thai Army's imposition of martial law yesterday [20 May 2014] across Thailand, particularly that it has targeted the media and freedom of expression.

People in the region woke up to news that the commander of the Thai army announced at 3:00 a.m. that they declared Martial Law to take control of the situation in order to prevent violence and restore peace and order. This action has been long anticipated in Thai politics, currently locked in a seven-month long political impasse that has seen 28 deaths, hundreds injured, failed parliamentary elections and an ousted prime minister.

The declaration puts the military in effective control over the civilian government, as it gives the former virtually unlimited powers to control the situation, and effectively suspend civil rights guarantees in the constitution.

At the end of the first day of martial law, orders from the Peace and Order Maintaining Command (POMC) have been chillingly focused on the media and free expression.

Five out of 12 Martial Law orders from the POMC directly impact media freedom and freedom of expression. Order Numbers 3, 6,7,8, and 9 include prohibiting distorted and inciting news and information of all forms (document, photo, publication and broadcast) in all media, or those which can cause fear and misunderstanding of the military's action. The prohibitions include distributing, selling and publishing such content.

Army Order No. 9, in particular is a clampdown on editorial independence, banning print and broadcast media from carrying interviews with former government officials, academics and civil society who might "confuse society or provoke violence" or cause opposition to martial law.

Order No. 8 meanwhile asked cooperation from internet service providers to suspend services for users that may provoke violence, or cause opposition to the POMC and also empowers the POMC to block service providers if such content remains, and also to take legal action against the offenders.

By 10 a.m. of 20 May, soldiers had been deployed at media offices and are in newsrooms to enforce closures and monitor content. In all, POMC had ordered the closure of 14 cable and satellite television channels, and an unspecified number of community radio stations.

In the context of the highly volatile political deadlock, shutting down media channels and banning critical commentary on the military's action and the political situation is misdirected and an overreaction that sends the opposite message that the Army has intended. The clampdown on media has used force to silence channels of information and public opinion out of fear. It also seriously threatens the right of citizens to freedom of opinion and expression and access to information necessary to exercise political participation in these critical times.

The shutdown of these channels - though highly politicized and in the control of political protagonists - has targeted the relatively newer channels of information that has represented the recent expansion of media freedoms in Thailand, away from the docile mainstream print media and the state or army controlled broadcast media. The move to shutter this class of broadcast media conveniently avoided members of the mainstream media associations.

The martial law authority has seemingly focused on suppressing criticism of the Army's act of the declaration of martial law, and not on containing inciting and polarizing speech that fuel violence and conflict. There could have been a number of intermediate steps for the military to take in order to contain insightful or hateful speech over the media, but shutting down entire stations regardless of programming content can only be described as an overkill.

That the military has not used its full Martial Law powers - such as imposing a curfew, ordering massed protesters from both sides to disperse, or detaining or gagging key leaders of these rallies - indicates that there is still some nuancing in the declaration of martial law as a response to the political crisis. They have emphasized that the imposition is "not a coup" and that the 2007 Constitution is still in force and people should act 'as normal'.

SEAPA calls upon the army to respect civil liberties and the media freedoms protected under Section 45 of the Constitution, in exercising the martial law powers. We reiterate that any limitation on these rights must follow constitutional and international norms of necessity, specificity and proportionality. Action must be limited to the declaration's objectives, which is containing the sporadic violence and preventing confrontation between pro- and anti-government demonstrators.

SEAPA views the presence of soldiers in media outlets and in newsrooms as a direct use of force to suppress the role of media to provide information based on their editorial prerogatives, even as we are fully aware of the polarization within the Thai media and its impact on the crisis.

We urge the martial law authorities that Army units deployed in media outlets be withdrawn and orders for the suspension of operations of media establishments be revoked immediately to allow these to resume normal operations.

The POMC must also keep their hands off social media as citizens use it as a direct channel of opinion and expression.

During the year, the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) junta curtailed the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly through repressive laws such the Referendum Act, the Computer Crime Act, and article 116 of the penal code on sedition, as well as NCPO orders censoring media and preventing public gatherings of more than five people.

The authorities proposed new measures that could further restrict media freedom, including a Cybersecurity Bill that would increase surveillance, prevent the publication of sensitive material, and facilitate data interception and website blocking. However, the government appeared to step back from plans to create a single gateway for all internet traffic following a public outcry.

Covering women’s issues does not come without danger. A female editor was murdered for denouncing a sexist policy. A reporter was imprisoned for interviewing a rape victim. A woman reporter was physically attacked for defending access to tampons, while a female blogger was threatened online for criticizing a video game. For International Women’s Day, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) wants to turn the spotlight on violence against journalists covering these issues. This report does not address the status of women journalists, equal employment of women in journalism or sexist (or non-sexist) attitudes in the media. These issues have been widely covered and debated elsewhere. This report focuses specifically on threats and violence against both men and women reporters covering women’s rights.

This "LGBT Censorship in Lebanon" report tackles the impact of censorship, unequal treatment and the arbitrariness of legislation on the daily lives of the Lebanese LGBT Community and more generally all LGBT-related content in Lebanon.

In this report we take a closer look on how a traditionally safe space for free speech and expression was transformed into a space of unregulated arbitrary legal practices. We also examine the effect that the ever-changing political objectives, affiliations and temporal objectives all have on the frequency and severity of online political censorship cases.

Combining both violent and nonviolent methods, the Communist Party's policies are designed to curb the rapid growth of religious communities and eliminate certain beliefs and practices, while also harnessing aspects of religion that could serve the regime's political and economic interests.

Many journalists increasingly practice self-censorship, fearing retribution from security forces, military intelligence, and militant groups. Media outlets in 2016 remained under pressure to avoid reporting on or criticising human rights violations in counterterrorism operations. The Taliban and other armed groups threatened media outlets and targeted journalists and activists for their work.

After already cracking down on freedom of information in recent years, President Erdoğan has taken advantage of the abortive coup d’état and the state of emergency in effect since 20 July to silence many more of his media critics, not only Gülen movement media and journalists but also, to a lesser extent, Kurdish, secularist and left-wing media.

This publication presents the findings of the media development assessment in Mongolia that began in 2012 to determine the state of the media in the country. The assessment was based on the UNESCO/IPDC Media Development Indicators (MDIs), an internationally recognized analytical tool used to provide detailed overviews of national media landscapes and related media development priorities.

Violence against journalists in Europe increased in the second quarter of 2016, reports submitted to Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom platform show, as a government crackdown in Turkey intensified and protests turned violent in countries from France to Finland.

“After the initial optimism during the Euromaidan movement, many journalists have become disillusioned. They are faced with the triple challenge of the war in the Eastern part of the country, the economic crisis and the digitalization of mass media.”

An officer of the Myanmar army recently filed a criminal complaint against two journalists for allegedly sowing disunity among the military. Even though mediation by the Press Council caused the military to withdraw the case, this incident demonstrates how the military continues to throw its weight to get back at what it perceives as negative publicity.

In recent years, the space afforded to civil society to operate freely has been shrinking dramatically across the world, presenting a serious threat to democracy and human rights. Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) have been especially badly affected by this shrinking political space.

The report is a frank assessment of the recent regime of online censorship and mass surveillance against a backdrop of longstanding, serious abuses of the judicial process and attacks on freedom of expression by Turkish authorities.

The report surveys the rocky landscape for media and public discourse since the ruling military junta lifted the curtain on the southeast Asian nation in 2012 after five decades of isolation from the modern world.

Despite its Constitutional commitment to free speech, India’s legal system makes it surprisingly easy to silence others. Routine corruption, inefficiency, and the selective enforcement of vague and overbroad laws allow individuals, or small groups, to censor opinions they find distasteful. - See more at: http://www.pen-international.org/the-india-report-executive-summary-and-key-findings/#sthash.TIIM2xbu.dpuf

As Globe International Center (GIC) reported, from 2012-2014, violations against journalists and the media increased compared to previous years and journalists faced external threats and intervention in their professional work, different types of pressures, threats, censorship in distribution, demands to reveal their information sources, to question and give testimony in mass by law enforcement bodies, especially by the General Intelligence Agency, use of criminal defamation law by politicians and public bodies or public officials censoring the media.

As the election looms for later this year, incidents in 2014 and in early 2015 involving the press raises serious questions on the genuineness of media freedom in Burma. The situation is alarming as the state seems to have heaped all the faults and fines on the media in the past year, which has seen a media worker being killed in October on the pretext of national security. International assistance has poured into the country to develop the media aimed at lifting and sustaining the state of media freedom. However, a viable press freedom environment seems unlikely to materialise in Burma before the end of this administration.

The media in Tripura is still dependent on the government for financial help, giving them an unprecedented upper hand to control press freedom in the state. As long as the political party in power is satisfied, the media is deemed to be okay otherwise there is an incredible pressure on the journalists as they have to not only endure insults but also face demotion in rank as well as being refused accreditation. - See more at: https://samsn.ifj.org/media-in-north-eastern-state-of-tripura/#sthash.0GypROMb.dpuf

There are far too many countries where news and content providers constantly face a very special and formidable form of censorship, one exercised in the name of religion or even God. And with increasing frequency, this desire to thwart freedom of information invokes the hard-to-define and very subjective concept of the "feelings of believers."

From August 28 to October 15, 2014, PEN American Center carried out an international survey of writers1 , to investigate how government surveillance influences their thinking, research, and writing, as well as their views of government surveillance by the U.S. and its impact around the world.

IFEX publishes original and member-produced free expression news and reports. Some member content has been edited by IFEX. We invite you to contact [email protected] to request permission to reproduce or republish in whole or in part content from this site.

Get more stories like this

Sign up for our newsletters and get the most important free expression news delivered to your inbox.